Karnataka High Court
Sri K. Nagaraj vs Smt Parvathamma on 28 February, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
RP No. 445 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REVIEW PETITION NO. 445 OF 2022
IN
R.F.A.NO.503/2008 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI K.NAGARAJ
S/O. LATE K.KARIBASAPPA
(DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES)
SMT. GUNAVATHI,
W/O. LATE K.NAGARAJ
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
1. SMT. B.C. JAYASHREE,
D/O. LATE K.NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
2. N. MALLESH
S/O. LATE K.NAGARAJ,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
KARNATAKA
RESIDING AT NO.95, (OLD NO.6)
RAMAKRISHNAPPA ROAD, COX TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 005.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI Y.R.SADASHIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAHUL S. REDDY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O. LATE K. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
-2-
RP No. 445 of 2022
2. SRI N. RAMESH KUMARA
S/O. LATE K. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
3. SRI N. CHANDRA KUMAR
S/O. LATE K.NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT NO.4, HAINES ROAD,
CLEVALAND TOWN 'C' STATE
BENGALURU-560 005.
4. SMT. KUSUMA
W/O. SIDDESWARA,
D/O. LATE K.NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1205, 18TH 'A' MAIN,
5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 010.
5. SMT. GEETHA
W/O. R.B. UMASHANKAR,
D/O. LATE K.NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT C-TYPE NO.501.
SECTOR-II, KUDREMUKH,
CHIKKAMAGALUR.
6. SMT. C. GIRIJA
W/O. LATE K.BASAVARAJ
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
RESPONDENT NO.7 AND 8
WHO ARE ALREADY IN RECORD,
7. SMT. SUDHA
W/O. G.L. LINGAPPA,
D/O. LATE K.NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R6 AND R7 ARE RESIDING
AT NO.26, BUDDHA VIHAR ROAD,
-3-
RP No. 445 of 2022
FRZER TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 005.
8. SMT. VIJAYA
W/O. KASHINATHA,
D/O. LATE K.NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO.17/1, B.H.ROAD,
BEHIND ALANKAR STUDIO,
BHADRAVATHI,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O. LATE KARIBASAPPA,
SMT. SAROJA,
W/O. RUDRAMURTHY
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
9. SMT. PANKAJA R,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
D/O. RUDRA MURTHY AND SAROJA,
W/O. A.N. MAHESH KUMAR,
"MARUTHI NILAYA", 2ND CROSS,
SHARAVATHINAGARA,
OPP. KARNATAKA NIRAVATI NIGAMA,
SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA- 577 201.
10. SRI B.R. MANJUNATH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
10(a) SHALINI G.M.
W/O. LATE B.R.MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
10(b) ANISHA
D/O. LATE B.R.MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
10(c) SHIKSHAN
S/O. LATE B.R.MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS
-4-
RP No. 445 of 2022
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
7TH CROSS, B.H.ROAD
HALAPPA CIRCLE, BHADRAVATHI
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-577 301.
11. SMT. ANUSUYA B.R.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
D/O. RUDRA MURTHY AND SAROJA,
W/O. SOMESH V,
R/AT NO.607, BDA LAYOUT,
NEAR SUMANGALI KALYANA MANTAPA,
LINGARAJAPURAM,
ST.THOMAS TOWN POST,
BENGALURU-560 084.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
SMT. MANEESHA KONGOVI, ADVOCATE FOR R7 & R8;
SRI SURESH S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE FOR R10 [a to c])
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114
R/W. ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 08.10.2021 IN R.F.A.
NO.503/2008.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and
2. The main contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the review petitioners before this Court is that,
this Court has answered point No.1 as 'affirmative', in coming
RP No. 445 of 2022
to the conclusion that the Trial Court has committed an error in
disbelieving the relinquishment deed executed by
K. Basavaraju over the suit schedule properties by executing
the release deed dated 02.05.1973 and this Court, answered
the said point No.1 as 'affirmative' but, committed an error in
granting the share in favour of plaintiff Nos.6 to 8 i.e., together
they are entitled to 1/4th share in respect of item No.1 of the
suit schedule properties is erroneous. The counsel also brought
to notice of this Court that the relinquishment deed is very
clear that he had released his right in respect of all the other
properties of joint family and hence, ought not to have granted
the share in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule
properties. Hence, there is an error apparent on record.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents Nos.7 and 8 brought to notice of this Court that, in
the relinquishment deed, it is specifically mentioned as to what
are all the properties which belongs to the family and the same
is also stated therein and the relinquishment deed is also very
specific that, except the properties which have been mentioned
therein, there are no other joint family properties and the
entire document has to be read together and the contents of
RP No. 445 of 2022
the document also to be taken note of and hence, the
submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioners
cannot be accepted and not committed any error and no error
apparent on record in the reasoning given while granting the
share.
4. It is contention of the learned counsel appearing for
the review petitioners that, once the said K. Basavaraju has
released his entire right in respect of the joint family
properties, the legal representatives cannot claim a share. The
said contention cannot be accepted and the document of
relinquishment deed has to be read together with the contents
of the document, wherein it is specifically mentioned as to what
are all the properties which belongs to the joint family and that
the releasers and releasees are having right and they are the
absolute owners of the properties. Apart from that, it is made
clear that, there are no other joint family properties, except as
mentioned above and the details of the family properties are
mentioned as item Nos.1 to 6 in the release deed. When such
being the case, when the property is not included in the release
deed, the same was taken note by this Court while appreciating
the material on record and when the same is not a part of the
RP No. 445 of 2022
release deed and the same was not included in the earlier
document and having taken note of the said fact into
consideration, this Court granted share in favour of plaintiff
Nos.6 to 8 i.e., together they are entitled for 1/4th share in
respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties and also
there is an admission that these properties are not included in
the relinquishment deed and in the partition. Hence, no
grounds are made out to review the order and there is no
mistake apparent on the face of records to exercise the review
jurisdiction. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the review
petition.
Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
